Homewood: A Community Profile Prepared by the Allegheny County Department of Human Services for the Homewood Children’s Village in October 2009 Published 2010 by Allegheny County DHS Table of Contents Table of Contents 4
History of Homewood
6
Homewood Community Assets
7
DHS System Involvement
8
Income and Poverty
Education and Employment
Public School Enrollment
Educational Attainment
Employment
15
Health Indicators
Pregnancy
Infant Health
Youth Mental Health
Causes of Death
Housing and Home Ownership
Homeownership
Public Housing
Vacancy
22
Child and Community Safety
Child Abuse and Neglect
Juvenile Delinquency
Shootings and Homicides
Incarceration
Income
Poverty
Public Assistance
11
2 19
30
Sources
3 History of Homewood History of Homewood Homewood Beginnings
A Neighborhood in Transition
In the early 1800s, Homewood was a picturesque pastoral landscape.
In 1852, the Pennsylvania Railroad began running railcars into
Pittsburgh. Homewood was one of the stations along the way.1 This
new railway created opportunities for the wealthiest in the city.
Wanting to escape the dirt and grime of the city, many elite Pittsburghers sought a more scenic atmosphere. The extension of the
railroad and the amenities it provided to Homewood made it possible
for these elites, among them Andrew Carnegie and George Westinghouse, to relocate their families to the once suburban area.
Beginning in the 1910s, upper middle class black families and working
-class Irish, Italian, and German families started moving to Homewood for its reasonable prices and convenient location. These groups
brought different customs and traditions to the area, and typically had
less money than the upper middle class residents of the late 1800s.
Later, as a result of the changing demographics, many of the original
upper middle class northern European descendants began to migrate
to neighborhoods in the more-distant suburbs.5 Because of these migrations in inflows, Homewood became more diverse. Some streets had
blocks of middle class families from the same ethnic background, others had working class families from varied backgrounds, and still others were poor and run-down.6
In its early stages, Homewood held mostly estates for these wealthyfamilies. As these estates required many workers to keep them in
order, servants also moved to Homewood. Some lived in quarters on
the estates, but many lived in areas around the railroad tracks. A
large number of these servants were black. The settlements of these
estate servants marked the first black populations in Homewood.
It was not until the 1890s, when streetcar lines were built, that upper middle class families began moving to Homewood.2 Contractors
swept in and built modest brick and stone houses. Families were eager to escape the grime of neighborhoods closer to the city, and the
area grew rapidly in the first two decades of the 20th century. The
people who moved to Homewood were mostly downtown office
workers, skilled laborers, and small business owners of Northern
European descent.3 At this time the neighborhood was considered
“the choicest residence locality in the greater Pittsburgh area” and
this helped create a neighborhood of 30,000 residents by 1910.4
4 The relations between the black and white residents of Homewood
were originally amiable. Black residents were among the first to settle
in the area, so later white neighbors acknowledged their claim on the
neighborhood.7 There were tensions between different ethnic and religious groups in the area; however, it was not until later that race relations in Homewood became truly strained.
A shift in the demographics occurred in the 1950s when the city
claimed land in the Lower Hill District for the Civic Arena. This led to
the displacement of an estimated 8,000 people, some of whom decided
to relocate in Homewood. The majority of these Hill residents could
not afford to buy houses in Homewood, so many of the large family
homes and other buildings were divided into rental apartments. These
events caused a shift in the racial balance of Homewood resulting in
blacks outnumbering whites by large margins.
This influx of black residents panicked the neighborhood’s white
middle class, many of whom decided to move away. The result of
this is that by 1960, Homewood was 70 percent black.8 The population shifted from 22 percent black in 1950 to 66 percent black in
1960 with an overall population decline from 34,355 to 30,523.9
A second event that resulted in unfortunate devastation of the
neighborhood and other predominately black areas was the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Riots and looting occurred in
Homewood and the Hill District for a period of two days causing
irreparable damage to businesses that led to the decline of the business district in both neighborhoods.
The significance of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 cannot be overstated. One of the provisions of this Act, the Fair Housing Act, gave
blacks the right to reside anywhere they chose. Some of the more
affluent blacks in Homewood seized this opportunity and relocated
their families to surrounding areas such as Penn Hills, Plum and
Monroeville.10 This resulted in another population decline where
from 1970 to 1980 the population went from 20,266 down to
15,158.11
Recent Homewood History
are renter-occupied.13 This signifies the trend in homeownership vs.
renting that was noted in the 1950’s.
An ethnography study was completed on Homewood in 1993 that provides some perspective on how the neighborhood has evolved since its
more vibrant years. Sadly, the conclusions of the ethnography described the youth as being lost and not able to see the value in themselves and others. To quote the study’s author, James E. Synder,
“Much of the discussion of the situation in Homewood
today is tinged with anguish over the physical, economic, and social devastation of a community which
once represented hope. The human tragedy associated
with the loss of an economic base that nurtures a stable
community is inescapable. Too many young people see
no hope for a job that provides a living wage, and they
know that education is no guarantee of economic success.”14
To combat the feelings of hopelessness that some residents have are
neighborhood groups/organizations such as the Homewood-Brushton
Community Association and the Homewood-Brushton Revitalization
& Development Corporation that aim at helping the residents and
businesses thrive in the neighborhood. Further, these organizations
are vital in the efforts of providing the public with a different perspective of the neighborhood that is not based on the primarily negative
reports that the media outlets provide.
History of Homewood History of Homewood Homewood has continued to see its population decline. In 1990, the
population was estimated at 11,511 and in 2000, the estimate decreased to 9,283.12 Furthermore, the neighborhood continues to be
predominately black with about 50 percent of the residents in the
labor force while the remaining 50 percent are categorized as not
being in the labor force. Further, according to 2000 census reports,
47 percent of the residences are owner-occupied whereas 55 percent
5 Community Assets 6 Homewood Community Assets Overall Service Usage, Dept. of Human Services Density of Youth Actively Involved in the Department of Human Services, 2007 7 Income & Poverty Household Income Household Income
A high percent of households in Homewood
neighborhoods made less than $15,000 in 1999, including half of the households in Homewood South.
When compared to the City of Pittsburgh, Homewood neighborhoods have a much higher percentage of lower-income households and a lower percentage of households with income greater than
$25,000. The gap between income levels is even
more pronounced between Homewood and Allegheny County. As the graph illustrates, household
income is not constant across Homewood neighborhoods. Homewood South is dominantly poor, and
Homewood West has an income distribution that is
slightly more even.
Children living in poverty are disproportionately exposed to a host of risk factors affecting development, including malnutrition, abuse, parental depression and low quality child care. Poor children also
are more likely to experience poorer physical and mental health, engage in risky behaviors and fare
worse academically than children who are not poor.
1999 Household income, in 1999 Dollars
60%
50%
Homewood West
40%
Homewood North
Homewood South
30%
City of Pittsburgh
Allegheny County
20%
10%
0%
Less than
$15,000
$15,000
to
$24,999
$25,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
to
$99,999
$100,000 $150,000
to
or more
$149,999
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
1999 Population in Poverty
Populations in Poverty
45%
Homewood North and Homewood South have much higher poverty
rates than the City of Pittsburgh. More than one in three people in
Homewood North and South are living in poverty. Homewood West
not only has fewer people in poverty than the other two Homewood
neighborhoods, but the rate is also lower than the rate in the City of
Pittsburgh. All rates are higher than the national average for 1999,
which was 12.38 percent.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Homewood West
8 Homewood North
Homewood South
City of Pittsburgh
Poverty rates are calculated using a national formula with weights
to account for different family sizes. In 1999, the poverty line was
$8,240 for a single resident and $16,700 for a family of four.
The federal poverty level is used to calculate official poverty rates, but policies and programs impacting lowincome individuals often discuss poverty in terms of income relative to the poverty line.
The chart to the right shows the composition of the population in each community by the ratio of personal income
to the federal poverty line (.50 is half the poverty line; 1.0
is the poverty line, etc.). Individuals below the poverty line
are officially counted in poverty rate estimations (.99 and
below), but individuals within 200 percent of the poverty
level are eligible for many forms of public assistance.
1999 Ratio of Income to Poverty Level
s
t
n
e
d
i
s
e
R
f
o
t
n
e
c
r
e
P
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2.00 and over
1.50 to 1.99
1.00 to 1.49
.50 to .99
The distribution on this chart shows that while Homewood North and South have significantly higher levels of
deep poverty compared to all other groups, Homewood
West does have a very large proportion of individuals falling between 100 and 200 percent of the poverty line.
Under .50
1999 Percent of Population in Poverty by Age
80%
Percent of Cohort Population
70%
60%
Homewood West
Homewood North
Homewood South
City of Pittsburgh
Allegheny County
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Income & Poverty Poverty This group faces challenges similar to those of people
below the poverty level, so it is important to remember to include this population in discussions.
The final chart for poverty looks at rates by age. Remember that the numbers here only include individuals below the poverty line. The rates for Homewood
West look low, with very few children in poverty, but
there may be many who fall just above the poverty
threshold.
Common trends among the other four geographies
included here are decreasing rates of poverty as age
increases. In Homewood North and South, poverty
rates for children are very high at about 70 and 64
percent, respectively. This is more than double the
rate of poverty among children in Pittsburgh and
Allegheny County.
0%
Under 5 5 years
years
6 to 11
years
12 to 17 18 to 64 65 to 74 75 years
years
years
years and over
2000 Census
9 Income & Poverty Public Assistance The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which is also referred to as Cash Assistance,
provides money for dependent children and their parents or other relatives with whom they live, and for pregnant
women. Food stamps are used to buy food and help low-income households in Pennsylvania obtain more nutritious
diets by increasing the food purchasing power at grocery stores and supermarkets.
Public Assistance
Cash assistance and food stamps are important forms of income for individuals in poverty. The county data system does not
contain counts of people participating in each program, but it does contain eligibility data, which is displayed in the large
chart below. Note that Homewood has more than double the eligibility of the city as a whole. In the 2000 Census, households
were asked to report if they received income from cash assistance. The percentages by community are higher than those listed
for 2007, but the trends are the same. Homewood South reports
greatest eligibility and receipt, followed by Homewood North,
Households with Public Assistance Income: 1999
then Homewood West. Again, rates for Homewood North and
1 6%
South are double the rate of the city.
1 4%
1 2%
1 0%
8%
6%
Food Stamp and TANF Eligibility Rates: 2007
4%
2%
9%
0%
Ho mewood
West
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
Homewood North
Homewood South
Homewood West
Percent of people eligible for Food Stamps
10 City of Pittsburgh
Percent of people eligible for TANF
Homewood
North
Homewood
South
City of
Pittsburgh
Public School Enrollment
Year 2000 Public School Enrollment by Grade
A higher percent of students in Homewood are enrolled in
public schools as compared to the City of Pittsburgh and all
of Allegheny County, especially at the preschool level. Since
a high percentage of students in Homewood rely on public
school education, ensuring that the public schools meet the
academic needs of the students is especially important.
120%
100%
80%
Homewood West
Homewood North
Homewood South
City of Pittsburgh
Allegheny County
60%
40%
Finding a way to keep youth in the schools is also an important challenge that must be faced. Dropout rates for Westinghouse high school are double those of the state and nearly
four times higher than in all Allegheny County schools. If
youth are dropping out of school, it significantly lowers their
chances to become gainfully employed and self-sufficient.
20%
Year 2000 Population Enrolled in College, by Age
0%
Preschool
Kindergarten
Grades 1-4
Grades 5-8
Grades 9-12
70%
2000 Census
60%
2007-2008 Dropout Rate for Students Grades
50%
Rate
40%
Westinghouse High School
3.97
30%
Pittsburgh School District
2.80
All Allegheny County Public Schools
1.09
PA Public School Districts
1.74
Homewood West
Homewood North
Homewood South
City of Pittsburgh
Allegheny County
Education & Employment School Enrollment 20%
10%
0%
All Ages
15 to 17
years
18 to 24
years
25 to 34
years
35 years
and over
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
11 Education & Employment Educational Attainment Educational Attainment
The percent of the population in Homewood that is enrolled in college (refer to Year 2000 Population Enrolled in College, by Age chart on
page 11) is close to the percent within the county as a whole. The rate within the city is much higher, but that is likely inflated due to the large
on-campus college population. Among adults aged 18-24, residents in all of Allegheny County are enrolled at a higher rate than residents in
any of the Homewood communities, with an additional ten percent enrolled in college. Homewood South has significantly lower rates than
Homewood West and Homewood North, which is partially compensated for among residents ages 25-34, who are enrolled at a rate higher
than residents in all other categories. Individuals age 35 and above have similar rates across all neighborhoods.
2007-2008 Graduation Rates and Percent of Students Entering Post-Secondary Education Programs
Graduates
Graduation
2-4 Yr College
Any Post-
74
37.4 %
56.8 %
64.9 %
Pittsburgh School District
1814
54.3 %
74.6 %
81.3 %
All Allegheny County Public Schools
11857
75.8 %
77.8 %
83.9 %
Westinghouse High School
Year 2000 Highest Level of Educational
Attainment Population Ages 25 and Over
50%
40%
Homewood West
Homewood North
Homewood South
City of Pittsburgh
Allegheny County
30%
20%
10%
0%
12th grade, no
diploma Or
Less
12 High school
graduate
(includes
equivalency)
Associates
Degree or
Some College
Bachelor's
degree
Postgraduate
Degree
Census 2000
The chart to the left displays the highest levels of educational attainment by community. Over 20 percent of residents in Homewood have not completed their high school
degrees, reaching about one in three individuals in Homewood South. Homewood slightly outpaces the city and
county for rates of individuals with high school diplomas
and Associates degrees. This is due to the fact that residents of the city and county have completed Bachelors
and Postgraduate degrees at much higher rates. About 25
to 30 percent of their total population has a Bachelor’s or
Postgraduate degree whereas only ten percent of Homewood residents completed this level of education.
The chart above looks at outcomes for graduating seniors
in the year 2007-2008. Not only are fewer Westinghouse
graduates entering any form of post-secondary education
than youth from other schools in the region, but the
graduation rate is significantly lower, with only 37.4 percent of 9th graders enrolled in 2004-2005 graduating in
2007-2008.
Labor Force
In 2000, the national unemployment rate was four percent.
The City of Pittsburgh slightly exceeded that rate, while
unemployment in Homewood was well above the average,
with the exception of employment of women in Homewood
West.
60.0
50.0
Homewood West
40.0
Homewood North
30.0
20.0
Homewood South
City of Pittsburgh
10.0
Male
Not in labor
force
Unemployed
Employed
Not in labor
force
Unemployed
0.0
Employed
One difference between Homewood and many communities
is that woman are employed at a greater rate than men in
Homewood. Homewood has a very high rate of adult men 18
-64 who are not in the labor force. This rate for Homewood
outpaces the City of Pittsburgh by 10-15 percent. Only 3345 percent of Homewood residents are employed, compared
to over 55 percent of city residents. The unemployment
rates in Homewood West and Homewood South are double
the rate in Pittsburgh.
1999 Labor Force Status by Gender
Percent of Residents
The chart to the right breaks down labor force status by
gender and community. The labor force status of women in
Homewood closely mirrors trends in other communities,
where there are typically a significant proportion of women
out of the labor force. The unemployment rate is slightly
higher in Homewood North and South than in Pittsburgh.
Female
Year 2000 Percent of Workers Employed in the City
of Pittsburgh, by Residence
78%
Education & Employment Ec
Labor Force Status 76%
74%
Place of Employment
A higher percentage of workers from the Homewood
neighborhoods are employed in the City of Pittsburgh than
workers from other neighborhoods. The difference between
Homewood West and North with the city is about eight percent of each community’s’ workforce. The East Busway provides direct access from Homewood to downtown, making
access to the city more convenient.
72%
70%
68%
66%
64%
Homewood West
Homewood North
Homewood South
City of Pittsburgh
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
13 40.0
Less than 30 minutes
20.0
0.0
h
Pi
tt s
bu
rg
oo
d
60 or more minutes
of
ew
C
ity
H
om
H
om
ew
oo
d
So
u
N
or
W
es
oo
d
ew
H
om
45 to 59 minutes
th
th
30 to 44 minutes
t
Percentage
Transportation often serves as a barrier in low income communities. One way to get a sense of this
barrier is to look at the modes of transportation individuals use most frequently and how long their average commutes take.
80.0
60.0
Travel Time by Means of Transportation
80.00
60.00
Homewood
40.00
City of Pittsburgh
20.00
45 to 59
minutes
Other means
Public
transportation
Other means
Public
transportation
Other means
Public
transportation
Other means
Public
transportation
0.00
Less than 30 to 44
30
minutes
14 Commute to Work
Travel Time to Work
Percent of Workers
Education & Employment Commute to Work 60 or
more
The first chart on the left displays the percentage of
people reporting the corresponding travel times necessary to get to work each day. The majority of residents in all communities make the commute in less
than 30 minutes. Note that residents of the city make
their commute in under 30 minutes with much
greater frequency. Homewood South has a larger
proportion of people who require 30 to 44 minutes,
and all Homewood neighborhoods have a higher proportion of people who require an hour or more for
their commute. While these numbers are low, they
still total up to ten percent of the population, more
than double the percentage of Pittsburgh residents
with long commutes.
The second chart condenses the neighborhoods of
Homewood into one category and compares the
travel time for residents by mode of transportation to
those of residents of the Pittsburgh. Other means of
transportation could include private vehicles as well
as walking or bicycling.
This chart again displays that city residents have
shorter commute times, but it also shows that city
residents rely less frequently on public transportation
to get to and from work.
Regardless of residence location, the percentage of
people who get to work within 30 minutes by using
public transportation compared to other means is
very low, suggesting that if one relies on public
transportation, commute times are likely to increase.
The health and age of a mother can have a significant impact on
the health and development of a newborn child. The following
indicators describe the prevalence of certain risk factors within
the Homewood community.
First Trimester Care
This chart compares the percent of births in each community receiving first trimester care in 1995, 2000, and 2006. Access to
first trimester care is critical for the well-being of the mother and
the child. Homewood has a lower percent of first trimester care
than the city of Pittsburgh as a whole. The percent receiving care
in Homewood increased significantly since 1995, but then decreased from 2000 to 2006, remaining five percent lower than
Pittsburgh, which is at 86 percent. About one in five pregnant
women in Homewood do not receive any first trimester care.
Percent of all Births Receiving First Trimester Care
Homewood
City of Pittsburgh
Year
Number
Percent*
Number
Percent*
2006
63
81%
2,291
86%
2000
94
83%
3,239
87%
1995
128
68%
3,622
82%
*Percent = Percent of all live births, excluding those with unknown prenatal
care
Health Indicators Pregnancy **Unknown prenatal care increased dramatically with the implementation of
the new birth certificate in 2003
Percent of all Live Births to Females Under Age 20
Homewood
City of Pittsburgh
YEAR
Number
Percent*
Number
Percent*
2006
34
28%
417
12%
2000
39
30%
569
15%
1995
47
25%
645
14%
*Percent of all live births
Teen Pregnancy
The teen pregnancy rate is also presented for 1995, 2000, and
2006. The rates for Homewood were more than double the rate
for the City of Pittsburgh in 2006 and 2000. The rates have fluctuated slightly, but there have not been any marked increases or
decreases. One in four children born in Homewood are born to
teenage mothers.
15 Health Indicators Infant Health Infant mortality is largely preventable. The risk of infant death is reduced with adequate health care and nutrition
during pregnancy and preventive health care after birth
Infant Mortality Rate
Low Birth Weight
Low birth weight can cause many problems for a child, both at the time
of the birth and later in life. In 1995 and 2000, Homewood had higher
rates of children with low birth weights than children born within
Pittsburgh. The percent of low birth weight children decreased from 17
percent in 1995 to 11 percent in 2006, matching the rate within Pittsburgh. While rates vary widely from one community to the next, this
rate still exceeds the national average, which is close to eight percent.
Low birth weight can be caused by numerous factors, but some risk factors can be avoided, such as smoking or drinking during pregnancy.
Homewood
City of Pittsburgh
Year
Number
Rate*
Number
Rate*
2006
5
40.7
32
9.6
2000
2
15.6
49
12.7
1995
2
10.5
55
12.3
Infant Mortality = Infant deaths under one year
Births Where Birth Weight is Below 2,500 Grams
Homewood
Year
Number
Percent*
City of Pittsburgh
Number
Percent*
2006
14
11%
356
11%
2000
18
14%
403
10%
1995
33
17%
503
11%
Low Birth Weight = Birth weight under 2,500 grams
*Percent = The percent of births within total birth population
*Rates per 1,000 live births by race of mother
Infant Mortality
The infant mortality rate for Homewood was significantly higher
in 2006 than the rate for the City of Pittsburgh. Prior to that
year, the infant mortality rate for Homewood was approximately
the same as the rate for the City of Pittsburgh. Due to the low
number of births in the community, this rate will fluctuate
greatly given an increase of one or two deaths, but this indicator
should be monitored to see if the increased rate for 2006 is an indicator of a real increase in infant mortalities in Homewood, and
if so, what might be causing the increase.
The following chart and density maps reflect county
data on youth who have received some form of public
mental health service. At about nine percent, the percentage of youth receiving services through the
county is slightly higher in Homewood than in the
City of Pittsburgh, with only slight fluctuation among
the three neighborhoods. In the city, only about seven
percent of youth received mental health services in
2007.
Youth Mental Health Percentage of Youth Receiving Mental Health Services: 2007
The density maps show where individuals receiving
such services are most likely to reside, both within
Homewood and within Pittsburgh. As the maps of
Pittsburgh illustrates, Homewood is one of only five
density points that appear on the map, and the large
concentration in the downtown area may be misleading since some consumers list the address of their service provider rather than their residence..
Health Indicators In addition to biological factors, many environmental factors put young people at risk for developing
mental health disorders, including exposure to environmental toxins, exposure to violence, stress related to
chronic poverty, discrimination, or other serious hardships, and the loss of important people through
death, divorce, or broken relationships.
Density of Youth Actively Involved in Office of
Behavioral Health, 2007
17 Health Indicators Causes of Death Rates for different causes of death changed between 2000 and 2006. In Homewood, the rate of heart disease and chronic lower respiratory
disease significantly declined while the rates of malignant neoplasms and cerebrovascular disease increased. Drastic changes in some of the
rates makes comparison between Homewood and Pittsburgh difficult. However, the rates of unintentional injuries and homicide/legal intervention were consistently higher for Homewood during each year when compared to the rates for the City of Pittsburgh. This may indicate a
trend in violence that directly impacts the health and wellbeing of residents in Homewood more than other communities.
Causes of Death
Homewood
Pittsburgh
Homewood
2006
Causes of Death
Pittsburgh
2000
Number
Rate*
Number
Rate*
Number
Rate*
Number
Rate*
Heart disease
10
221.1
937
292.9
22
486.5
1,334
398.7
Malignant neoplasms
15
331.7
817
255.4
9
199.0
928
277.4
Cerebrovascular disease
5
110.6
181
56.6
4
88.5
263
78.6
Chronic lower respiratory disease
Pneumonia/Influenza
1
22.1
143
44.7
4
88.5
171
51.1
-
75
23.4
1
22.1
100
29.9
Unintentional injuries
5
110.6
146
45.6
5
110.6
143
42.7
-
20
6.3
1
22.1
20
6.0
22.1
92
28.8
1
22.1
129
38.6
-
Motor vehicle accidents
Diabetes
1
Suicide
-
-
31
9.7
-
-
29
8.7
HIV infection
-
-
8
2.5
-
-
14
4.2
Homicide and legal intervention
2
44.2
50
15.6
1
22.1
34
10.2
Total all causes
57
1,260.5
3,502
1,094.7
63
1,393.2
4,202
1,256.0
*Rate = Rate per 100,000 population, Data year 2000 based on U.S. Census 2000. Data year 2006 based on population estimate.
18 As the chart to the right describes, median housing values for
Homewood communities were significantly lower than they
were in Pittsburgh, but the median rents were fairly comparable. In Homewood South, where nearly 50 percent of units
were rented, the housing values were the lowest and rent was
only lower in Homewood North.
Median Housing Values and Rent
Median OwnerOccupied Housing
Value
Median Rent Asked
Homewood West
38,400
357
Homewood North
37,900
231
Homewood South
33,800
310
City of Pittsburgh
60,700
370
Year 2000 Tenancy of Housing Units
A notable difference between the Homewood
communities and Pittsburgh is the vacancy
rate of units. Vacancy in each Homewood
community about doubles the rate in Pittsburgh at twenty percent, compared to just
over ten percent.
60
50
40
Owner occupied
Renter occupied
30
Vacant
20
10
A large number of vacancies in a community
may have multiple detrimental impacts. Vacancies will lower the value of occupied
homes in the vicinity, and have been demonstrated to be associated with increased levels
of crime in a community.
Housing & Homeownership In 2000, Homewood West and Homewood North had fairly
equal numbers of units that were renter-occupied and owneroccupied, with slightly more units that were owner-occupied.
This balance was comparable to that in the City of Pittsburgh.
Homewood South was dominated by renter-occupied units,
with a difference of almost 20 percent between the two kinds
of units.
Percentage of Housing Units
Health Services & Outcomes Homeownership 0
Homewood Homewood Homewood
City of
West
North
South
Pittsburgh
Household Size for
Owner-Occupied Residences
2.41
Homewood North
5.22
Homewood South
4.59
City of Pittsburgh
2.17
Percentage
Homewood West
40
3-person household
30
20
4-person household
10
5-person household
0
Homewood Homewood Homewood
West
North
South
Household Size for
Renter-Occupied Residences
1-person household
2-person household
50
40
3-person household
30
20
4-person household
City of
Pittsburgh
6-or-more person
household
Household composition among owner-occupied
residences are very similar among owners in all
Homestead communities and Pittsburgh. Each
community has about 30 percent of units occupied
by 1-person households, and another 30 percent
by 2-person households. Beyond that, the numbers
steadily decline with household size.
Among renter-occupied residences, some differences do emerge. Homewood south and the City of
Pittsburgh have much larger percentages of 1person households.
10
5-person household
0
Homewood Homewood Homewood
City of
West
North
South
Pittsburgh
1-person household
2-person household
50
Average Household Size
Percentage
Housing & Homeownership Household Composition 6-or-more person
household
Overall, Homewood North and Homewood South
have significantly larger average household sizes
than Homewood West and Pittsburgh. This is not
completely reflected in the charts given the large
proportion of 1-person households in Homewood
South, so it is possible that the presence of a few
very large households in each community increased the average considerably.
The following chart documents the percentage of youth in each community who were active in public housing services during
2007. ACHA is the Allegheny County Housing Authority; HACP is the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, and HH
are Hunger and Housing services of the county. Youth in HH likely appeared in a homeless shelter or transitional living facility.
While the magnitude of the rates are not extremely high, there are few duplicates in the data, meaning that about six percent
of youth in Homewood received housing services in 2007, or about one in 20 youth in Homewood. This compares to less than
two percent in Allegheny County, or less than one in 50 youth.
Percent of Youth
Public Housing Involvement: 2007
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
ACHA (active)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
HACP (active)
HH (active)
Homewood
Housing & Homeownership Housing Services Allegheny County
21 Child & Community Safety Child Abuse & Neglect Children suffering from abuse or neglect are susceptible to many negative outcomes,
ranging from minor injury to severe brain damage and even death. Victims may
develop interpersonal problems and exhibit violent behavior.
In 2007, 241Homewood children were receiving services from the Office of Children, Youth and Families. This number includes youth whose families were receiving in-home services, as well as youth who were placed in care out of
the home. Rates of involvement varied by neighborhood, but overall, about 8.4 percent of youth were receiving service. This rate is twice that experienced by all children residing in the City of Pittsburgh.
The density maps to right show areas of the city where CYF involvement is most prevalent, and Homewood is one of
the few highlighted neighborhoods. The density maps within Homewood illustrate more pockets of involvement in
North Homewood and South Homewood. This seems to contradict the rates in the chart below, but the population of
Homewood West is about one-third that of the other two neighborhoods, causing the rate be higher even though
fewer children in that neighborhood were receiving services.
Percent of Children Receiving CYF Services: 2007
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Homewood North
Homewood South
Homewood West
Percent of Children Receiving Services
City of Pittsburgh
Density of Children/Youth Actively Involved in Office of Children, Youth and Families, 2007 Child & Community Safety Child Abuse & Neglect 23 Child & Community Safety School Safety The environment within a school impacts educational success, mental health, and behavioral tendencies. The chart below displays some
of the safety information reported for Westinghouse High School compared to other schools in the city and the county. As discussed below, the rate of incidents fell sharply in 2007, so now the average number of incidents per student is lower in Westinghouse than in the
Pittsburgh School District as a whole. However, the rate of offenders is high at 46 per 100. These are unique offenders, so nearly half of
the high school population was an offender at some point in the school year. The rate of youth being arrested or assigned to alternative
education is also significantly higher at Westinghouse.
School Safety and Discipline Figures: 2007
Westinghouse High
School
2007 Figures
Pittsburgh School District
Allegheny County Schools
Figures per
Figures per
Figures per
2007 Figures
2007 Figures
100 students
100 students
100 students
Enrollment
458
30594
156937
Incidents
307
67
25774
84
30915
20
Offenders
212
46
10059
33
14351
9
No. of Incidents Involving
Local Law Enforcement
13
3
1052
3
2133
1
Total Arrests
35
8
1221
4
1825
1
Assignments to
Alternative Education
37
8
1195
4
1558
1
The total number of incidents in Westinghouse halved in 2007. There were a total of 790 incidents at Westinghouse in
2006, and this was not an unusual spike. Rates in 2005 and 2004 were slightly lower, but also significantly higher than in 2007.
The data we have does not reveal what may be the cause of the decline, but that is an important piece of information. It may have
been caused by different policies impacting reporting of incidents, or it may the positive results of new methods to increase school
safety. While the rate of incidents changed at Westinghouse, it remained fairly similar in other Pittsburgh and Allegheny County
schools.
In 2007, 145 Homewood youth were referred to the Allegheny County Juvenile Court Probation Office. The
ratio of youth involved with the juvenile court to all
children in Homewood is approximately double that of
the City of Pittsburgh, and represents about five percent of all children in these communities.
Juvenile Delinquency Youth Referred to Juvenile Probation and in
Out-of-Home Court Placement
As the chart and the density maps illustrate, youth involved with juvenile probation in Homewood are not
concentrated in one spot, but reside throughout the
whole community.
Density of Youth Actively Involved in
Juvenile Probation, 2007
Child & Community Safety Research shows that youth who start their delinquency careers before age 13 are at higher risk of becoming
serious and violent offenders than those who start their delinquency careers later.
Child & Community Safety Homicides Between 1997 and 2007, 64 people were murdered in
Homewood. Homewood South has the most homicides but
when population is taken into account, both Homewood
West and Homewood South have homicide rates that rank
them in the top five most dangerous neighborhoods in the
area. Note on the density maps that homicides in Pittsburgh are heavily concentrated in and around Homewood.
Within Homewood, there are also a few areas of concentration.
Young, black men living in Pittsburgh in 2005 faced a homicide rate that was over 50 times the national average
Homicide Rates: 1997-2007
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Homewood North
Homewood South
Homewood West
City of Pittsburgh
Homicide Rate
Density of Homicides, Homewood and City of Pittsburgh
(1997-2007)
Clusters of shootings appear in a handful of neighborhoods in
Pittsburgh, including Homewood. All three of Homewood’s
neighborhoods rank in the top ten for shooting rates. There are
few concentrations on the density map, and the maps of shootings
and homicides do not closely match. This may suggest that shootings are occurring throughout the neighborhood and not in concentrated sections.
Aggregate Shootings from 1997-2007
Number of
Shootings
Annual Rate
Homewood North
71
157.01
Homewood South
85
233.07
Homewood West
14
125.67
City of Pittsburgh
1289
38.53
Annual rate is the average number of shootings per year per 100,000 residents.
Density of Shootings, Homewood and City of Pittsburgh (1997‐2007) Child & Community Safety Shootings 27 Child & Community Safety Incarceration Two-thirds of offenders recidivate within three years of release.
Homewood neighborhoods rank among the neighborhoods
with the highest rates of population in jail, on parole, or incarcerated in state prison. Homewood West has particularly
high rates for these indicators. Homewood South has lower
rankings than the other Homewood neighborhoods for parole and Department of Corrections involvement, though the
rankings are still relatively high.
Rankings of Pittsburgh neighborhoods by
Rate of Occurrence (per 100,000)
Population
in...
Homewood
North
Homewood
South
Homewood
West
Jail
13
6
1
Parole
13
41
5
DOC
9
21
2
Jail Incarceration Rate
25
20
15
10
5
0
Homewood North
Homewood South
Jail Incarceration Rate
Homewood West
Density of Released Inmates from Allegheny County Jail, Homewood and City of Pittsburgh Child & Community Safety Incarceration Sources 30 Information Sources A History of Homewood
Data Sources
1 Sapolsky, Steven and Bartholomew Roselli. “Homewood-Brushton: A
Century of Community Making”. Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh; 1987.
2 Homewood Brushton : a pictorial representation of its growth, population characteristics, housing conditions, health, social services, and recreational facilities / Edward B. Olds
3 Sapolsky, Steven and Bartholomew Roselli. “Homewood-Brushton: A
Century of Community Making”. Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh; 1987.
4 Snyder, Jean. Ethnographic Survey, Final Report: Homewood, Point
Breeze, East Liberty and Highland Park. Steel Industry Heritage Corporation. Pittsburgh; 1993.
5 Homewood Brushton : a pictorial representation of its growth, population characteristics, housing conditions, health, social services, and recreational facilities / Edward B. Olds
6 Sapolsky, Steven and Bartholomew Roselli. “Homewood-Brushton: A
Century of Community Making”. Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh; 1987.
7 Sapolsky, Steven and Bartholomew Roselli. “Homewood-Brushton: A
Century of Community Making”. Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh; 1987.
8 Sapolsky, Steven and Bartholomew Roselli. “Homewood-Brushton: A
Century of Community Making”. Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh; 1987.
9 Green, Elwin. “Homewood trying to reverse longtime downward spiral”.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Pittsburgh; 2007.
10 Green, Elwin. “Homewood trying to reverse longtime downward spiral”. Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Pittsburgh; 2007.
11 Green, Elwin. “Homewood trying to reverse longtime downward spiral”. Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Pittsburgh; 2007.
12 Pittsburgh Department of City Planning. Census Pittsburgh. Available
at: http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/cp/html/census_information.html
13 Pittsburgh Department of City Planning. Census Pittsburgh. Available
at: http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/cp/html/census_information.html
14 Snyder, Jean. Ethnographic Survey, Final Report: Homewood, Point
Breeze, East Liberty and Highland Park. Steel Industry Heritage Corporation. Pittsburgh; 1993.
Allegheny County Data Warehouse
Allegheny County Health Department
Carnegie Mellon University Center for Economic Development
Census Bureau
PA Department of Education